Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 28644 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #180 on:** February 26, 2012, 04:51:48 AM »

Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself. Here are four dilemmas for the sedevacantist position, which we haven't even scraped the surface of yet.

1: The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.

2: The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction. This is well known, and I'll back it up if need be. So, practically nobody has ordinary jurisdiction today, only supplied jurisdiction can be claimed for matters relating to the sacraments. This has been the case for 53 years. So not only can no one can say who is subject to whom, or whom should everyone rally around and be in communion with, but this creates still greater problems which brings me to my next point.

3: The absence of a principle of unity: If "independent" Bishop A splits from "independent" Bishop B, who is in schism from the Church and who remains in communion with her? No one can say, because it's not just a matter of an interregnum here, but like I said, a wholesale rejection of communion with the Roman Church itself which always maintains ordinary power over every other Church ("by divine ordinance" - Vatican I). This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.

4: Conclavism: Continuing, we see for example that after Pope Liberius was declared deposed, very soon after Felix II was elected. This is only logical. In fact, most of the sedevacantists of yesterday are the conclavists of today. If it is recognized with absolute and infallible certainity, as is being claimed here, that "the Pope is not the Pope", then the logical and immediate thing to do is diligently elect a new Pope, not wait indefinitely, nor even less speculate there may be another unknown Pope somewhere else (especially someone who would have died by now, any Cardinals appointed in pectore being unable to function as such anyway), and especially for others when it is anyway known there are no more Cardinals now if the last 5 Popes have been invalid. This would also help address the problems of jurisdiction created and all that were mentioned above. So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?

5. Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.

This is not to pick on them, I understand many, even home-aloners are probably trying to do their best. But it remains a fact that sedevacantists cannot in any way show themselves to possess all the necessary and exclusive marks of the true Church, and it can even be said that these necessary marks indeed disqualify them from laying any claim to it.

In light of all this, truly insurmountable *dilemmas* I would think, the *difficulties* faced by traditional groups which remain more or less in communion with the Pope pale to utter insignificance.

Katholikos, let me reply to what you said.

Quote

Nishant, the problem here is that "may have" isn't good enough.

I said what I did in response to something specific that SJB had said. I'm not denying what you said about this, but I was giving an example of a "maneuver" or "legal defense" that the definition he provided referrred to.

But before we even come to investigating Pope Benedict XVI personally, the more important premise, the major of the whole thesis ("everyone must absolutely make that determination in case a Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") must be solidly established first, so harping about the minor ("the Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") does not prove anything without that.

If instead of the major premise, something like "every member of the Catholic faithful is free to defend the Pope from the charge of being a heretic even if he is wrong" of course without embracing the heresy in question himself is true, then the whole dogmatic sedevacantist thesis collapses. This I believe is what St.Maximus did.

Quote

We must look at what theologians have said about the matter, for they were extremely well-learned in these things. In particular, I would be interested in reading about the disputations at the First Vatican Council regarding the case of Pope Honorius I.

St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point. He was concerned about those who used such incidents to deny the Pope's authority which he rightly defended. They did this all the way up to the First Vatican Council. But after it was once and for all decided by the Church, there was no danger in saying that Honorius was a heretic so long as the dogma indirectly involved, of Papal infallibility as such, is not denied. The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.

Quote

That's nice, but that doesn't make it a dogma, to deny which would be heresy and thus make the denier a non-Catholic.

It could be argued that the doctrine in question was already universally taught by the ordinary Magisterium infallibly and so could not be called into question obstinately without the forfeiture of membership in the Church. That is why it was in a profession of Faith.

Quote

You've been reading too much John Salza. :-) No inferior can issue a canonically valid warning.

Not a canonically valid one, no, as I said in this thread long ago. :) But one that the situation and the supreme law of the Church nonetheless urgently demands, yes.

Those in competent positions who can act in the name of the Church must make the binding determination. Those who are not cannot make the determination then usurp that authority by pretending it to be binding and then finally and fancifully declare themselves alone the Church for doing so. That is the real "ridiculous mess" your article speaks of and the whole situation turns out to be quite amusing.

Quote

Yes, but you're leaving out the fact that moral imputability is sometimes presumed, so that the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that he was not morally imputable.

Yes any person especially a Pope would be entitled to rebut the presumption and I would argue as the SSPX website says, "socially as regards loss of office etc it must be proven, not presumed". In the absence of this chance for the person in question to defend himself from specific charges, one can hold the presumption as an opinion, not rashly treat it as a sort of infallibly certain superdogma in the light of which all else is to be judged, in my opinion, and wait to see if that presumption can be acted upon to go to the extent of judicial proof. I would go back to the historical example, and say Cardinal Orsini made the presumption, and because the Pope changed his mind and accepted the rebuke of the Cardinal, the presumption was relaxed.

Quote

One would first have to establish with certitude the facts surrounding Pope Liberius.

Haha. I think this is the real shifting of the burden of proof. It comes down to this, in the reading of history that even most Catholic theologians before Vatican II subscribed to, there are no precedents from which the dogmatic sedevacantism position can be deduced, and many that seem to render it implausible.

Of course we can go back and forth about history ad nauseam with nothing "established with certitude" unless we are willing to admit the majority opinion of theologians as determinative. I think on Pope Liberius, Honorius and Pope John XXII, I am in line with what Catholic theologians say, the Catholic Encyclopedia says and the Holy Office said.

Moreover, if it is even possibly true (i.e. a permissible reading of history) that Honorius was a heretic and Maximus who died defending him is a Saint not a heretic, dogmatic sedevacantism is necessarily false.

So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.

Maizar · « **Reply #181 on:** February 26, 2012, 06:10:25 AM »

Hi Nishant, what you explain is quite clear and more or less what I have held to be true in the past. But in the current situation it appears to me that the political and spiritual Church are not always one and the same. For example, when SSPX were "excommunicated" this was merely a political matter, I hope you agree, and in retrospect this was never binding. Yet many bishops in the political Church are clearly public heretics, obstinate and proud, let alone vile sinners, and while politically they still hold power, spiritually they are defunct. Are we to hold these bishops in higher regard than those who have Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis but not political union?

Now say that a Bishop in Exampleville who is an Orthodox patriarch turns out to have exactly the same completely correct beliefs as a Bishop in Sampleville who is under Pope Benedict, they are spiritually united, as both are valid bishops, neither is heretical, but they are separated politically - be it under Canon Law or however you wish to put it. Perhaps they will or won't unite, for whatever reason, but until they do they are merely separated on earth and not in Heaven. Or am I mistaken?

I'm saying this because I can see the day coming, perhaps soon, that we will as a result of violence be left with a remnant, no Pope, and little in the way of political structure. The Church can survive a long time without a Pope, and just because one day down the track a new Pope is elected by all known remaining Bishops in an enclave, does not mean that bishops who later pop up out of the jungle were not in communion the entire time.

katholikos · « **Reply #182 on:** February 26, 2012, 12:19:53 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

But before we even come to investigating Pope Benedict XVI personally, the more important premise, the major of the whole thesis ("everyone must absolutely make that determination in case a Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") must be solidly established first, so harping about the minor ("the Pope appears to have fallen into heresy") does not prove anything without that.

If instead of the major premise, something like "every member of the Catholic faithful is free to defend the Pope from the charge of being a heretic even if he is wrong" of course without embracing the heresy in question himself is true, then the whole dogmatic sedevacantist thesis collapses. This I believe is what St.Maximus did.

Nishant, considering that the Pope has no superior on earth, it must necessarily be possible, at least in theory, for each and every member of the Church to ascertain public pertinacious defection from the Faith (just as he can with any other individual, not just the one claiming to be the Pope). That there might be borderline cases here and there where it's not entirely clear whether or not there is pertinacity, this is irrelevant to our case at hand because here the evidence for pertinacity is overwhelming. In other words, we don't need to worry about exactly where to draw the line of demarcation simply because wherever that line might need to be drawn, it's definitely been crossed!

Secondly, pertinacity may not even matter. At the end of the day, you cannot have a Pope who does not profess the Catholic Faith. Whether he does so innocently or not, is secondary, according to a theological opinion. The majority opinion of dogmatic theologians is that even material heretics are not members of the Church.

Regarding your minor premise - yes, you are free to defend a papal claimant if you think he is the Pope, but at the end of the day, everything needs to be grounded in evidence and in reality. In other words, defenses must be reasonable. For example, arguing that Ratzinger doesn't know that separation of Church and state is against Catholic teaching, is ludicrous.

Quote

St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point. He was concerned about those who used such incidents to deny the Pope's authority which he rightly defended. They did this all the way up to the First Vatican Council. But after it was once and for all decided by the Church, there was no danger in saying that Honorius was a heretic so long as the dogma indirectly involved, of Papal infallibility as such, is not denied. The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.

Again, I caution people to simply go by the Catholic Encyclopedia on such a touchy subject, and leave it at that. To attempt to draw a parallel with Pope Honorius I and the likes of Joseph Ratzinger, Giovanni Montini, and Karol Wojtyla is absurd on its face. I suggest that the best sources on the subject of the Pope Honorius question are the writings that were penned after Vatican I by recognized Church authorities who witnessed the discussions at the council on this topic. To use the Honorius case to defend the idea that a Pope can be a heretic and remain Pope, is not warranted.

Quote

It could be argued that the doctrine in question was already universally taught by the ordinary Magisterium infallibly and so could not be called into question obstinately without the forfeiture of membership in the Church. That is why it was in a profession of Faith.

Let's just cut through all the fog and go straight to the real thing: If you can give me any approved dogmatic theologian since Vatican I who taught (with the Church's approval) that Pope John XXII was a heretic and did not cease to be Pope, please quote him, and I will consider it.

Quote

Not a canonically valid one, no, as I said in this thread long ago. :) But one that the situation and the supreme law of the Church nonetheless urgently demands, yes.

But if it's not canonically valid, then it can have no impact on canon law. Please show me where Church law says an inferior can issue a warning against a superior and it having any sort of effect.

Quote

Those in competent positions who can act in the name of the Church must make the binding determination.

But that's just the point. If the "Pope" is valid, then no one can make a binding determination, for no one can bind the Pope or bind someone else against the Pope's authority. Nor could they act in the name of the Church against the Pope's approval.

Quote

Those who are not cannot make the determination then usurp that authority by pretending it to be binding and then finally and fancifully declare themselves alone the Church for doing so.

But nobody does that! No sedevacantist I know of tries to "usurp" legal authority in the Church. You, like Salza, confuse the order of law with the order of fact. Not everything is a matter of law. And nobody declares himself the Church. No, it simply follows with logical necessity that the Conciliar Establishment in the Vatican cannot be identical to the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII.

Quote

Yes any person especially a Pope would be entitled to rebut the presumption and I would argue as the SSPX website says, "socially as regards loss of office etc it must be proven, not presumed".

The "Pope" cannot rebut the presumption because that would mean there is an ecclesiastical trial to which the Pope could be subjected. Impossible. Heretical. The First See is judged by no one. Second, what your defense really amounts to is saying that it is per se impossible to convict the "Pope" of heresy because, ultimately, he being the Supreme Ruler, he can always acquit himself. Or who would be in a position to decide whether the "Pope's" rebuttal was conclusive?

The whole argument that it would first have to be "determined" by cardinals or whoever that the Pope is pertinacious is an impossible argument. It would only hold water if it is conceded that the "Pope" in question has already lost the papacy, else he could not be judged. So, if anything, your argument actually works in favor of sedevacantism.

Look, the point is that you cannot really use Church law against a Pope, since the Pope is technically above Church law anyway. You need to go beyond the legal stuff and look at what Church law is actually trying to accomplish: identify those who do not profess the Catholic Faith as non-Catholics, at the very least if it is clear that they know the Catholic Faith and still refuse to profess it.

And that's the whole point. Ratzinger is the last person on earth who could plead "inculpable ignorance" on Catholic theology.

Quote

In the absence of this chance for the person in question to defend himself from specific charges, one can hold the presumption as an opinion, not rashly treat it as a sort of infallibly certain superdogma in the light of which all else is to be judged, in my opinion, and wait to see if that presumption can be acted upon to go to the extent of judicial proof.

Please realize that the entire sedevacantist position can be proved even without accusing a single person of heresy, simply by showing that the Novus Ordo church has done things the Catholic Church cannot do. John Daly's talk at a conference in 2002 explained this very well. It has since been transcribed and given the title, "The Impossible Crisis," here:

http://www.thefourmarks.com/articles.htm#crisis

Quote

Haha. I think this is the real shifting of the burden of proof. It comes down to this, in the reading of history that even most Catholic theologians before Vatican II subscribed to, there are no precedents from which the dogmatic sedevacantism position can be deduced, and many that seem to render it implausible.

Try the case of Antipope Anacletus II. Pope Innocent II was the true Pope. Again, if you can show me any time in history where a Pope was a heretic and yet still had a valid papacy, let me know.

Quote

Of course we can go back and forth about history ad nauseam with nothing "established with certitude" unless we are willing to admit the majority opinion of theologians as determinative. I think on Pope Liberius, Honorius and Pope John XXII, I am in line with what Catholic theologians say, the Catholic Encyclopedia says and the Holy Office said.

You're moving way too fast here. First, let's agree that we cannot use the Catholic Encyclopedia alone to "settle" anything. It's not a magisterial docuмent. I will quote it on occasion, but only to underscore a point, never to be the binding last word on anything. Second, you speak of the majority opinion. Perhaps I haven't followed all of the posts recently, but it would be good if you could list which theologians you are referring to, but it would have to be theologians during or after Vatican I, for obvious reasons. As for the Holy Office, I don't know what you're referring to.

Quote

Moreover, if it is even possibly true (i.e. a permissible reading of history) that Honorius was a heretic and Maximus who died defending him is a Saint not a heretic, dogmatic sedevacantism is necessarily false.

No. After establishing that Honorius was a heretic, you would then have to prove that he still retained the papacy during and after his heresy.

Quote

So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.

A church that isn't Catholic, a Pope who isn't a Catholic, a Pope who isn't the highest authority in the Church - is not the Catholic Church, no matter what the difficulties may be with sedevacantism.

I will reply to the other things you said later today.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #183 on:** February 26, 2012, 01:05:57 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself.

The FSSP stance is WRONG. They celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, sure. But in doing so, they sell out to modernist Rome. They unite themselves with the very people responsible for the crisis in the Church. Archbishop LeFebvre gave a great sermon in 1988 about such groups (he wasn't talking about the FSSP since they weren't around at the time, but his sermon would certainly apply to them). I believe I posted his sermon before for you to read. He stated that such groups are "doing the handwork of the devil" or something to that affect, because they unite themselves with modernist Rome. I'd post the sermon again but I don't remember where I found it.

Quote

The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.

This actually gives credibility towards the sedevacantist thesis. If you truly believe that this church of Vatican II is the true Catholic Church, you must accept Vatican II, Benedict XVI, and the Novus Ordo because the Catholic Church cannot produce a sacreligious Mass or a heretical council. The Vatican II church, however, is not the true Catholic Church. It is, as Archbishop LeFebvre stated, "the counterfeit church".

Quote

The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction.

Sorry, but it would have been wrong for ABL to NOT have Consecrated the four Bishops, to give an example. The whole "He went against JPII's demands" argument is bullcrap.

Quote

This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.

Vatican II separated itself from the true Catholic Church. Therefore, they are the ones in schism.

Quote

So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?

This is nothing more than a nonsense question that has nothing to do with the serious issues at hand. Laypeople cannot elect a Pope.

Quote

Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.

Does Vatican II contain any of the Marks of the Church? Was Vatican II's theology in-line with Catholic teaching? Is there unity in the Vatican II church, or is it a mixed bag? Your argument swings both ways, Nishant, and it's swinging against you.

Quote

St.Robert is generally held to be mistaken in good faith about the historical facts on this point.

So a Saint is mistaken? Who has more theological knowledge? You or the Saints?

Quote

So when all of this is considered, sedevacantism especially of the dogmatic variety becomes the least likely position and so other options must be considered within the pale of the Church and under Pope Benedict XVI.

So in other words, I should submit to a heretical counterfeit church headed by a manifest heretic? That is sheer insanity.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #184 on:** February 26, 2012, 01:13:42 PM »

SS, I think if you had the opportunity to know some of the FSSP clergy you would not be so convinced they are wrong.

The ones I have known are very holy, trying to save souls in the crisis. They are almost miraculous in their zeal for souls. all things considered.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #185 on:** February 26, 2012, 01:19:34 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

SS, I think if you had the opportunity to know some of the FSSP clergy you would not be so convinced they are wrong.

The ones I have known are very holy, trying to save souls in the crisis. They are almost miraculous in their zeal for souls. all things considered.

I actually watch an FSSP Mass every Sunday.

I never said the FSSP wasn't Catholic. I said their position is wrong.

katholikos · « **Reply #186 on:** February 26, 2012, 02:57:46 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Sedevacantism, all told, seems to be the least likely solution to the crisis. :) For any difficulty that can be alleged to a contrary position, there are more than one that can be demonstrated for the sedevacantist position. For the record, I incline to the FSSP view myself. Here are four dilemmas for the sedevacantist position, which we haven't even scraped the surface of yet.

Quick clarification: A thousand difficulties do not make a single contradiction. On the other hand, one single contradiction (absurdity/impossibility) suffices to show a position to be false.

Quote

1: The indefectibility of the Roman Church: This is taught by Pope St.Agatho ("this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error ... from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself") and Pope St.Gregory VII ("the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time, the Scripture bearing witness"). If this is the case, it could be said that sedevacantism stems from a loss of faith in the divine promise.

Not in the least. It is precisely because the sedevacantist agrees with this that he knows the Novus Ordo church cannot be the Catholic Church. For example: To be Novus Ordo, he would be obliged to renounce the Catholic doctrine on the Social Kingship of Christ, in favor of religious liberty. These two doctrines are contradictory and so they cannot both be true and not both be held. One of them must be false. But it is clear that religious liberty is false. Ergo...

Quote

2: The loss of ordinary jurisdiction: All Bishops consecrated without explicit Papal approval cannot exercise ordinary jurisdiction. This is well known, and I'll back it up if need be. So, practically nobody has ordinary jurisdiction today, only supplied jurisdiction can be claimed for matters relating to the sacraments. This has been the case for 53 years. So not only can no one can say who is subject to whom, or whom should everyone rally around and be in communion with, but this creates still greater problems which brings me to my next point.

I will agree that the problem of jurisdiction is the greatest problem, or one of the greatest. Probably more study and research is required on the subject. However, we do not solve this problem by granting jurisdiction to the bishops of the Novus Ordo church, for they do not even profess the Catholic faith.

Quote

3: The absence of a principle of unity: If "independent" Bishop A splits from "independent" Bishop B, who is in schism from the Church and who remains in communion with her?

Both are required to be in communion with the Holy See. THAT is the principle of unity, and that is what keeps the Church together. In the absence of a Pope and during a period in which the Holy See is eclipsed, it is only to be expected that confusion should reign. As long as both submit to the Holy See (i.e. to the Pope until October 9, 1958), I see no problem of schism at all. Again, this difficulty is not resolved by declaring a non-Catholic to be Pope - and especially not if we then insists that despite this, this "Pope" can be contradicted and resisted by anyone.

Quote

No one can say, because it's not just a matter of an interregnum here, but like I said, a wholesale rejection of communion with the Roman Church itself which always maintains ordinary power over every other Church ("by divine ordinance" - Vatican I).

No, there is only a rejection of communion with the false church.

Quote

This absence of a visible principle of unity also makes it impossible to tell who is in schism from whom and who is not. Ordinarily, anyone who separates from the Pope and the Bishops subject to him or someone who separates from Rome in an interregnum are identified to be in schism.

Yes, and since you cannot accuse any sedevacantists of that, you cannot accuse them of schism.

Quote

4: Conclavism: Continuing, we see for example that after Pope Liberius was declared deposed, very soon after Felix II was elected. This is only logical. In fact, most of the sedevacantists of yesterday are the conclavists of today. If it is recognized with absolute and infallible certainity, as is being claimed here, that "the Pope is not the Pope", then the logical and immediate thing to do is diligently elect a new Pope, not wait indefinitely,

Funny - the very same people who chastise sedevacantists for not electing a Pope also chastise those who do "elect a Pope." We just can't win here, apparently. Nishant, the matter is a bit more complicated than just "electing a Pope." One would first need to declare with legal authority that the Holy See is vacant (arguably, Bp. Thuc did that in 1982); then one would have to know with certitude who can be considered a Roman Catholic (this is difficult today for obvious reasons); then one would have to know who is and isn't allowed to participate in an election; and then one would have to know that one has the legal authority to elect a successor. There is way too much doubt here for anyone to produce a certainly valid Pope. And the last thing we need is another doubtful Pope.

Quote

nor even less speculate there may be another unknown Pope somewhere else (especially someone who would have died by now, any Cardinals appointed in pectore being unable to function as such anyway),

You're assuming that any such cardinals would have been "in pectore." But not necessarily so. If the Pope divulges the names/identities of the cardinals, even just to a few, then they would no longer be in pectore. Speculating about a true Pope somewhere is a lot better than insisting that a public non-Catholic is the Pope and then resist him.

Quote

and especially for others when it is anyway known there are no more Cardinals now if the last 5 Popes have been invalid. This would also help address the problems of jurisdiction created and all that were mentioned above. So that begs the question, if sedevacantism was true yesterday, why isn't conclavism true today? Or why aren't you electing new Popes or subjecting yourself to one such already elected?

As I explained above.

Quote

5. Marks: Needless to say, sedevacantism does not depict any of the marks of the Church, especially unity (much less "Catholic unity and unconquerable stability" - Vatican I), usually and predictably splintering into any number of sects not infrequently at variance with each other and often wrapped in internecine and unprofitable conflicts.

Well, if the principle of unity is missing, then it would only stand to reason that some unity is lost, no? This does not make sedevacantism false; it actually shows it to be consistent and vindicates the papacy. At least we have a reason for a lack of unity in certain non-essential things: we have no Pope. You guys, on the other hand, have a Pope (so you think), and you still have chaos. The SSPX is the perfect example of running a parallel church on the side.

Sedevacantists are united on all matters of faith and morals they need to be united in. If you think otherwise, please give me an example of where they are divided. All of the "controversial" issues today - from Thuc bishops to una cuм Masses to the Holy Week rites - are things people can legitimately disagree on as long as their disagreement is based on sound evidence and reasoning.

Quote

In light of all this, truly insurmountable *dilemmas* I would think, the *difficulties* faced by traditional groups which remain more or less in communion with the Pope pale to utter insignificance.

I like this: "more or less in communion with the Pope." :-) See if you can find any magisterial docuмents that allows people to be in communion with the Holy See "sort of."

None of what you have pointed to is a dilemma - a difficulty, yes, but not a dilemma.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #187 on:** February 28, 2012, 12:13:49 AM »

Nishant said:

Quote

The Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication a 100 years ago, after the Council plainly says Honorius was certainly a heretic and Catholics need not defend him from that charge now.

Since this is just one mistake I won't assume anything from it, but SSPX articles are full of blatant errors just like yours here.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Honorius I:

Quote

"It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though not necessarily, heretical. Unfortunately the Monophysites habitually argued in just the same inconclusive way, from the fact that Christ could have no rebellious lower will, to prove that His Divine and human will were not distinct faculties. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the human faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ."

In other words he was ambiguous in a way that savored of heresy, he didn't defend the faith strongly enough. The reason people argue about whether he was or was not a heretic is because he sinned by omission, not by commission. It's not clear, and never will be clear to anyone on this Earth because we can't read hearts. We can only speculate. But at worst, he was a private heretic. There is no formal recorded proof of his being a heretic; he just failed to defend the faith vigorously enough.

Isn't it interesting how you are so quick to label Honorius a heretic, so eager to denigrate him, while making one excuse after the next for people like Benedict who are on record saying things that don't just savor of heresy, but really are heretical, and who commit acts of blasphemy like at the Blue Mosque?

What Honorius did, being mealy-mouthed and ambiguous in a way that smacks of heresy, is something Benedict does almost every time he speaks or writes. Even then, sedes don't declare him a heretic on that basis. We declare him a heretic based on the relatively few times -- but it's enough -- where he unmistakeably crossed the line.

We are being more prudent towards him than you are towards Honorius, in your attempt to explain away the contradictory SSPX position. Isn't it sad that the SSPX position makes you scour Church history in desperation to prove a Pope was a manifest heretic? First you say this abomination known as VII is the real Church, which is tantamount to calling Christ a liar, since you are saying His spotless bride could lead people into error; then you go around trying to show that Popes were heretics. Think about it.

There are two questions here: What is the Church, and who is the Pope? The Council contains heretical statements that could not come from the true Catholic Church, so if you reject VII as the Church while accepting JPII or Paul VI as Pope, as ABL seemed to sometimes -- not that he was consistent -- then what are they the Pope OF?

Some say that JPII, Paul VI, and Benedict are heads of VII, in the way that Protestant pastors are heads of mega-churches which are not the true Church, while being materially heads of the true Church, which is in the shadows and which they have driven essentially underground... This is the sedeprivationist position. They say that Benedict is materially Pope, but not formally, meaning that he could become Pope again if he converted to the true faith. They would say his election is valid, from which they conclude -- controversially -- that he is now materially the true Pope of the true Church, but will formally become Pope if he abjures his heresies and becomes Catholic. But for now, like the sedevacantists, they say he has fallen outside the Church through heresy.

But leaving that aside, besides this Council which could not possibly be ratified by the true Church, we know that Benedict was a heretic before his election, his books are full of heresy, and by the tenets of cuм Ex Apostolatus he cannot be Pope. There is also the fact that a manifest heretic simply loses his office, as has been pointed out many times. John XXII was given some time and recanted his errors, but JPII never recanted after saying "the Old Testament has never been revoked." By his actions, visiting ѕуηαgσgυєs and the Wailing Wall, being a rampant Judaizer -- and we all know that great numbers of those in VII believe that Jews will be saved despite rejecting Christ, meaning these errors are rampant and are protected under JPII and Benedict -- gave no reason why we should believe that he just made a simple mistake.

Not to mention that any Catholic, let alone the Pope, would be expected to know that the Old Covenant is very much dead! Heresies simply don't get any more severe. Even saying "I worship Satan" is not worse than this; to say the Old Covenant is still valid is denial of Christ. If people could be saved by the Old Covenant, then there was no reason why Christ had to die. This is a vile heresy, the most vile imaginable, that reduces the faith to rubble, cutting it off right at the root.

So if you want to be even slightly logical while saying that JPII or Benedict is Pope, you'd have to be a sedeprivationist, the SSPX position doesn't work.

Nishant · « **Reply #188 on:** February 28, 2012, 03:11:25 AM »

Katholikos, I owe you a more detailed response, which I'll get to later today hopefully, but here is what you asked for, regarding theologians on papal infallibility and Honorius, from that same article I cited.

Quote

at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.

On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra.

And for Raoul, the Encyclopedia says Honorius was a heretic "not in intention but in fact". Further, if Honorius was not a heretic, it is difficult to see how anyone could lawfully cast an anathema on him.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #189 on:** February 28, 2012, 04:29:09 AM »

I pray for your conversion, Nishant. Please, for your souls sake, leave this erroneous mindset and see the truth about the Church and God being said here by many posters.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #190 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:22:00 AM »

Quote

Raoul said: Isn't it interesting how you are so quick to label Honorius a heretic, so eager to denigrate him, while making one excuse after the next for people like Benedict who are on record saying things that don't just savor of heresy, but really are heretical, and who commit acts of blasphemy like at the Blue Mosque?

Great point! :applause:

Exilenomore · « **Reply #191 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:31:43 AM »

In the past, anti-infallibilists always talked about Pope Honorius in an attempt to discredit Pontifical Infallibility. But the fact that Doctors such as St. Robert Bellarmine have rejected the claim that he was a heretic, even holding the position that forgery had taken place, should at least make it clear that you cannot now bring up Honorius here to support your arguments.

I believe that there has never been a valid Pope who was a heretic.

And I note again that the problems flowing from the present scenario since the last few decades are not about private heresy, but about a pseudo-magisterium which cannot bind the faithful. Pope St. Agatho, whom Nishant quoted, declared in a letter that none of his predecessors have failed in confirming their brethren in the faith. I confess the same, but my conclusions are different than those of Nishant.

These things will be resolved when the legitimate bearer of the Keys will reclaim what is his. You have mentioned that some have abandoned faith in the divine protection which the Roman Church enjoys in her doctrine and members, Nishant. But you cannot accuse me of this, for I believe both that she is still intact in her doctrine and religious practice, and that she still exists with clergy in a hierarchy. I simply do not know where the latter reside at present.

SJB · « **Reply #192 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:23:30 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

And for Raoul, the Encyclopedia says Honorius was a heretic "not in intention but in fact". Further, if Honorius was not a heretic, it is difficult to see how anyone could lawfully cast an anathema on him.

Quote from: Bellarmine

... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #193 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:25:34 AM »

Interesting that Nishant ignored most of what Raoul posted and completely ignored my post...

katholikos · « **Reply #194 on:** February 28, 2012, 05:30:43 PM »

Great points, everybody. Let me reiterate that for this Honorius argument to have any force at all for Nishant, he would have to demonstrate that not only was Honorius a public heretic, but also that despite being one, he remained a valid Pope, and the "solution" for the faithful and other clergy was to simply "sift" and "resist" what was coming from the Holy See under Honorius, and that this "sifting" and "resisting" could be done by any Catholic whomsoever, or was spearheaded by some self-appointed clergy who started "babysitting" the Magisterium of Pope Honorius. (And note that even the council that condemned Honorius condemned him as "Honorius the heretic," not as "Pope Honorius the heretic"!)

The whole scenario is absurd, but if Nishant cannot do that, then his argument has no force against sedevacantism.

I always chuckle at the non-Catholic idea that a valid Pope can be "resisted" in his teachings, laws, disciplines, liturgical rites, and canonizations. If that were true, what's the purpose of the papacy? Isn't the Holy See, "always unimpaired by any error" (Vatican I) supposed to be the defender of sound doctrine and the principle of unity? What becomes of that if anyone can just ignore at all if he thinks the Pope has "defected"? Didn't Christ pray that St. Peter's faith would not fail?

Going through history, when was the last time that an individual or a group "disagreed" with the Holy See doctrinally, and the Holy See ended up being wrong? (The "negotiating" SSPX should think about that!) The Holy See is NEVER wrong on doctrine - that's the whole point! Christ gave us a beacon of orthodoxy to cling to, to guide the way, to be a perpetual light of truth and holiness.

When I left the SSPX for sedevacantism nearly 10 years ago, an SSPX parishioner told me, "Look, you just take from the Pope what is good, and you reject what is bad! What more do you want?" I couldn't believe it. How does such a position treat the Pope any differently than, say, Protestants treat their "Pastor Bob"? Don't they, too, "take what is good" from him and "reject what is bad"? Is, then, the Pope simply a glorified "Pastor Bob"?

Is that the kind of "church" Our Blessed Lord came to establish? Of course not! Instead, He gave us a Church to keep us in the truth: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph 4:13-14)

Thank God for giving us a truly glorious and spotless Church, and not the sorry mess that the SSPX think is the "Church" today.